he appointment of ad hoc judges in the Supreme Court of Pakistan, governed by Article 182 of the constitution, is a mechanism designed to ensure that the apex court’s case load can be handled efficiently. This constitutional provision empowers the chief justice of Pakistan, with the president’s approval, to appoint a retired judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court as an ad hoc judge. This process becomes necessary when the number of regular judges is insufficient to handle the court’s functions effectively. The significance of this practice lies in maintaining judicial efficiency and upholding the rule of law.

The regular appointments process involves the Judicial Commission of Pakistan, which recommends candidates, followed by approval from a Parliamentary Committee. The appointment is made by the president. This procedure is intended to ensure that the appointments are based on merit, integrity and judicial expertise. Ad hoc judges are usually former justices with considerable judicial experience, chosen for their service records and legal acumen.

The rcent appointments of Justices Sardar Tariq Masood and Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel are a testament to the ongoing reliance on experienced retired judges to bolster the Supreme Court’s capacity. Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa’s administration of their oaths reflects a continued effort to benefit from seasoned legal minds.

The ad hoc judge concept has examples in other jurisdictions as well. In the United States, retired Supreme Court judges may occasionally serve on a lower federal court temporarily, but the Supreme Court does not appoint temporary justices. The The US Supreme Court relies on its nine permanent justices. Any vacancies are filled through a presidential nomination and confirmation by the US Senate. India does have a provision for appointing ad hoc judges to its Supreme Court under Article 127 of the Indian constitution. When there is a lack of quorum, the chief justice of India can appoint a retired judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court as an ad hoc judge with the president’s consent. This system, similar to Pakistan’s, aims to address the case load and quorum issues. In the UK, the Supreme Court can appoint “acting judges” under certain conditions, drawing from senior judges of the Court of Appeal or retired Supreme Court justices. This ensures that the court can function efficiently without being hindered by a temporary shortage of judges.

In Pakistan and India, the appointment involves both the head of the Judiciary and the head of the state, potentially balancing judicial independence with political oversight. In contrast, the US system emphasises lifetime appointments to avoid political influence on temporary appointments. Ad hoc appointments in India and Pakistan help manage high case loads, ensuring timely justice. The US approach relies on a fixed number of judges. Temporary needs are met by retired judges serving in lower courts. Transparency and adherence to constitutional provisions are crucial in all systems to maintain public trust. Controversial appointments can undermine confidence, highlighting the need for a clear, merit-based process.

The recent appointments are a testament to the ongoing reliance on experienced judges to bolster the Supreme Court’s capacity. Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa’s administration of their oaths reflects a continued effort to benefit from seasoned legal minds.

Through a different mechanism, the UK’s use of acting judges provides a flexible model that ensures judicial efficiency without permanent increases in the number of judges. This system, like those in Pakistan and India, emphasises temporary solutions to ensure the Judiciary’s effective functioning.

The appointment of ad hoc judges is a practical measure to enhance the Supreme Court’s capacity, ensuring that the Supreme Court can manage its case load without undue delays. This helps maintain the Judiciary’s efficiency and effectiveness, enabling timely justice. However, depending on context this can also raise concerns regarding judicial independence, particularly if the appointments are perceived as being influenced by political considerations. Ensuring transparency and strict adherence to constitutional provisions is thus crucial to maintaining public confidence in the Judiciary.

The potential for political influence in the appointment process can make those controversial. The roles of Judicial Commission and the Parliamentary Committee are crucial in ensuring that the appointments are made based on merit rather than political affiliations. The integrity of these bodies is vital to maintaining the Judiciary’s independence. Public perception has a significant role in the Judiciary’s credibility; controversial appointments can erode trust in the judicial system. While the constitutional framework aims to safeguard against undue influence, the effectiveness of these safeguards has sometimes been questioned. The Judicial Commission and the Parliamentary Committee are tasked with ensuring that the appointments are transparent and based on merit. However, the potential for political interference remains a concern.

The impact of ad hoc judges’ appointments on the Supreme Court’s efficiency is generally positive. These appointments help the court manage the case load and expedite case resolution. By incorporating experienced judges, the Supreme Court can handle complex and high-profile cases more effectively.

Public trust and confidence in the Judiciary are paramount. The appointment process for ad hoc judges significantly influences this trust. Transparent and merit-based appointments can enhance the Judiciary’s credibility. Ensuring adherence to constitutional provisions and maintaining transparency throughout the appointment process are essential.

Historically, ad hoc judges in the Supreme Court of Pakistan have been appointed to address specific needs, such as managing high work load. During the 1970s and 1980s, ad hoc judges were appointed to expedite case disposal due to a significant backlog. During the judicial crisis of 2007-2009, ad hoc judges were appointed to ensure continuity of judicial work amidst widespread judicial dismissals and resignations. More recently, ad hoc judges have been appointed to handle the work load and to replace judges unable to perform their duties due to health issues or other reasons.

The appointment of ad hoc judges in Pakistan’s Supreme Court is a critical mechanism for maintaining judicial efficiency and effectiveness. The concern for case overload may outweigh other considerations. In the end, the goal is to achieve free and fair justice.

The writer is an advocate of High Court, a founding partner at Lex Mercatoria and a visiting teacher at Bahria University’s Law Department. She can be reached at minahil.ali12@yahoo.com